All the research and time spent is this really making a difference in what we already know?
Not being a devil's advocate or trying to start a flame war but I see little benefit of any doctrine
changing or being revealed in the Peshitta compared to a Greek translation.

Lamsa in his Bible's Preface page 8 says some bishops left their church and joined the Greek Church and produced these versions for theological reasons so that their doctrine might agree with the doctrine of the Byzantine Church, which was the powerful imperial sect. Where is this in the bible? What did they change that merit's a translation back to the Peshitta?

(07-17-2015, 01:00 PM)TruthFinder Wrote: All the research and time spent is this really making a difference in what we already know?
Not being a devil's advocate or trying to start a flame war but I see little benefit of any doctrine
changing or being revealed in the Peshitta compared to a Greek translation.

Lamsa in his Bible's Preface page 8 says some bishops left their church and joined the Greek Church and produced these versions for theological reasons so that their doctrine might agree with the doctrine of the Byzantine Church, which was the powerful imperial sect. Where is this in the bible? What did they change that merit's a translation back to the Peshitta?

Whynot just take some time to read this forum? There are lots of posts that show 'what's the merit of the Peshitta'

(07-17-2015, 01:00 PM)TruthFinder Wrote: ...I see little benefit of any doctrine changing or being revealed in the Peshitta compared to a Greek translation... What did they change that merit's a translation back to the Peshitta?

For the benefit of the readers, the quote from the Lamsa Introduction is:
"Amid persecutions, the ancient Church of the East, through God's help and protection, was able to keep these sacred writings of the Old and New Testaments in the Biblical lands in Persia and India just as the Roman Catholic Church preserved them in the West. Christianity also owes a debt to the Jewish people who preserved the Word of God amid persecution and suffering.
Therefore, Peshitta should not be confused with the 5th century Bible revisions in Aramaic and new versions which were made from Greek. None of these new revisions and versions made by the Monophysite bishops in the 5th century has ever been accepted by the Church of the East. Moreover, these bishops who left their church and joined the Greek church and produced these versions for theological reasons so that their doctrine might agree with the doctrine of the Byzantine Church, which was the powerful imperial sect, were expelled by the Patriarch of the East and their works were condemned. However, in some provinces, owing to the pressure exerted by the Byzantine emperors, these new revisions were introduced.. But when the territory was occupied by the Persian government, they were destroyed.
Had the Peshitta been made by order of one of the rival churches, the others would have rejected it. But since all Christians, even the Moslems, in the Middle East accept and revere the Peshitta text, it proves beyond a doubt that it was in use many centuries before the division of the Church."

The theological difference involved the nature of God. The Monophysite bishops embraced Monophysitism.

Monophysitism (from the Greek monos meaning "one" and physis meaning "nature") is the christological position that Christ has only one nature, in which his divinity and humanity are united. The opposing Chalcedonian ("orthodox") position holds that Christ has two natures, one divine and one human. Monophysitism also refers to the movement centered on this concept, around which a major controversy evolved during the fifth through sixth centuries C.E.

There are a number of translations of the Peshitta which were written to agree with or promote the author's particular doctrine; Lamsa being one. Doctrine should flow from the text, not the other way around. Therefore, the accuracy of the base text is the primary concern. (I have translated the Peshitta – hopefully without prejudice. It is a reverse word order interlinear with an English translation. I am still reviewing the text. If that takes another year, so be it. One of the reasons I undertook the translation was that I might base my beliefs and doctrines on a translation I could trust.) The base text of the Peshitta has no major differences, from a doctrinal perspective, with that of most modern translations. The differences arise from bad translating and the interpretation of the text. The Peshitta is without question is the most accurate text available. Doctrine based on that text will therefore be the most reliable.

(07-17-2015, 01:00 PM)TruthFinder Wrote: ...I see little benefit of any doctrine changing or being revealed in the Peshitta compared to a Greek translation... What did they change that merit's a translation back to the Peshitta?

For the benefit of the readers, the quote from the Lamsa Introduction is:
"Amid persecutions, the ancient Church of the East, through God's help and protection, was able to keep these sacred writings of the Old and New Testaments in the Biblical lands in Persia and India just as the Roman Catholic Church preserved them in the West. Christianity also owes a debt to the Jewish people who preserved the Word of God amid persecution and suffering.
Therefore, Peshitta should not be confused with the 5th century Bible revisions in Aramaic and new versions which were made from Greek. None of these new revisions and versions made by the Monophysite bishops in the 5th century has ever been accepted by the Church of the East. Moreover, these bishops who left their church and joined the Greek church and produced these versions for theological reasons so that their doctrine might agree with the doctrine of the Byzantine Church, which was the powerful imperial sect, were expelled by the Patriarch of the East and their works were condemned. However, in some provinces, owing to the pressure exerted by the Byzantine emperors, these new revisions were introduced.. But when the territory was occupied by the Persian government, they were destroyed.
Had the Peshitta been made by order of one of the rival churches, the others would have rejected it. But since all Christians, even the Moslems, in the Middle East accept and revere the Peshitta text, it proves beyond a doubt that it was in use many centuries before the division of the Church."

The theological difference involved the nature of God. The Monophysite bishops embraced Monophysitism.

Monophysitism (from the Greek monos meaning "one" and physis meaning "nature") is the christological position that Christ has only one nature, in which his divinity and humanity are united. The opposing Chalcedonian ("orthodox") position holds that Christ has two natures, one divine and one human. Monophysitism also refers to the movement centered on this concept, around which a major controversy evolved during the fifth through sixth centuries C.E.

There are a number of translations of the Peshitta which were written to agree with or promote the author's particular doctrine; Lamsa being one. Doctrine should flow from the text, not the other way around. Therefore, the accuracy of the base text is the primary concern. (I have translated the Peshitta – hopefully without prejudice. It is a reverse word order interlinear with an English translation. I am still reviewing the text. If that takes another year, so be it. One of the reasons I undertook the translation was that I might base my beliefs and doctrines on a translation I could trust.) The base text of the Peshitta has no major differences, from a doctrinal perspective, with that of most modern translations. The differences arise from bad translating and the interpretation of the text. The Peshitta is without question is the most accurate text available. Doctrine based on that text will therefore be the most reliable.

What Aramaic text did you use to translate The Peshitta into English, Doug?

In regards to your question: What Aramaic text did you use to translate The Peshitta into English, Doug?

The text of the Aramaic is taken from The Syriac New Testament and Psalms, published by United Bible Societies, which was produced by the Bible Society in Turkey.

This is a critical text of the Peshitta that was completed from a collation of manuscripts at the British Museum Library. It is known as a "western" text of the Peshitta and therefore varies to a small degree from other eastern versions of the Peshitta.However, the differences are addressed my translation, except for some spelling, and cases where two words are expressed as one. For example in Mat. 11:9 "and if not" is expressed as one word in western text and as two in the eastern. This does not effect the English translation.

The extra verses and books of the western Peshitta are addressed. For example the "Pericope de Adultera", verses John 7:53 - 8:11. And the places where the text disagree, alternate translations from the Khabouris Manuscript are provided.

To give an example where spelling does make a difference:
(The following is a reverse word order interlinear translation.)

As I see the text there, a more correct rendering of the Peshitta text in Acts 13:14 would be ".... during the day of the Sabbath." "in the day" implies a space of time, thus "during" is a good choice over "on", which just indicates the day itself. A small matter, but I think a bit more precise rendering.

I have to say, Doug, that I am disappointed that you would use the inferior UBS text for your translation work, as it doesn't always represent the true and only text of The Aramaic New Testament.

Do you know that that compiled text has a number of Greek NT only words and verses added into it and mixed in with the original Aramaic NT text?

If you have an original copy of the UBS publication and not just an online text only version, you will see that it shows where this is so, and states that those verses came from the Greek NT, and are not found in the Aramaic manuscripts which they decided to use to compile their text from.

The P.A. for instance does not belong in The Aramaic NT, as it never has been in it, nor is the passage found in any Aramaic manuscript, nor should the W5 books be added in, as they are not part of The Aramaic NT either, but come from the Greek NT.

The Aramaic NT (The Peshitta) is unique, not a translation from any Greek source text; as can clearly be shown, where its text isn't derived from any of the Greek families, but has material in its text unique to each one of them.

Some Western Aramaic speaking monks, on the order of their leaders, took the original form of The Aramaic NT text, The Peshitta, and changed it in various places to more conform the text in their new version to both the Greek text in use in their lands, and to their particular doctrine on the nature of Christ.

The UBS text is not the original text of The Aramaic New Testament as it exists now and always has existed in The Peshitta. It is a hybrid text, taking most of the text of The Aramaic New Testament (The Peshitta) and mixing in some Greek NT material, and altering some of the text to suit the editors doctrinal beliefs.

If I were you, Doug, I would translate The Peshitta text, as found in the Khabouris, and other true Peshitta manuscripts, and then make notes in your translation where the UBS hybrid text deviates from it, and give the reasons why.

Doug, We have dozens of UBS text translations we can read, and they are all, to varying degree, hybrid Aramaic/Greek texts.

What I was hoping you were going to tell us, is that you had translated from The Peshitta text, which is the one and only Aramaic New Testament.

This is not to put down your work of translating, which may be well done, and it may be that you have done a better job of translating the UBS hybrid text than all the others have. I just don't see a need for yet another one of these in a long line of UBS text translations.

As of this date, I have found no single complete REAL Peshitta only translation in the English language. If you know of one, let me know please.

(08-04-2015, 03:50 AM)SteveCaruso Wrote: Chuck, take off the kilt. The "No True Peshitta" thing muddles the water more than it helps or is useful. :-)

Just refer to the Eastern vs the Western Peshitta traditions. Like everyone else does.

I'm being honest and straightforward about it, Steve.

You know the history of the UBS hybrid text. It is not a manuscript, or the pure text, as David Bauscher tries to sell it as, and in its present online form is not at all an accurate portrayal of the Aramaic NT.

You are not being honest if you don't tell the truth about it, Steve. The UBS is not even representative of "The Western Peshitta" traditions, as you put it...it is a patchwork of various Western manuscripts, and some of the editors choices to add in some Greek only material, such as the P.A. and a few other verses not found in any Eastern or Western, manuscripts.

The UBS should never be considered a true representative of The Peshitta.

And you, Steve, should know that.

If you want a hybrid Aramaic/Greek NT, then the UBS will do for that kind of work. But, it will not be a true Peshitta document or translation.

Steve, I don't own a Kilt...thank God, and if I did, I wouldn't take it off at your request.

(08-04-2015, 03:48 AM)Thirdwoe Wrote: Is your translation work online or in print so I can look it over?

I am still reviewing the translation. Until it is completed, it will not be released to the public. As a translator I only translate the text, doing my best not to prejudice the reader as to the validity of the reading. I am quite aware of the history of the USB text, and arguments for it, and against. I do have the original copies of the UBS publications in my library, English and Latin.

In my translation both the eastern and western readings are presented in one text; the choice is theirs to make. The eastern readings are from the Khabouris manuscript, for which I have a high regard.

You referred to the Khabouris as a true Peshitta manuscript. It is interesting to note that transcription of the Khabouris Codex by S. P. Silver utilizes the UBS text to reconstruct the text. He writes, "Parts of the manuscript are rubbed off, smudged or otherwise illegible. These letters, words and larger areas have been carefully reconstructed using the 1905 Peshitta text in red." Is this the text you would rather see translated? I intend to translate this text at a later date.

On another note, I see that you sign your posts with a Greek translation of 1 Cor. 3:15. Let me offer you a translation from the Khabouris.

Hi Doug, I'm glad to hear that you are going to translate what is found in the original text of the Peshitta, where the UBS text deviates from it.

But, I'm pretty sure you will only do so when something major is found to be different, and not in every place, correct?

I have taken great pains to look at all the differences, both large and very small, and have found the Khabouris text to be superior in every respect, and obviously not influenced at all from the Greek text/texts.

I don't despise the Greek text/texts, I just know that they are translations, and sometimes the translators will get it wrong here and there, which is very understandable and I know the reasons why too well...

I sometimes read and quote from English translations of the Greek text, though when something is clearly mistranslated, and gives the wrong sense, I go with the correct wording of the text, as found in the Aramaic NT.

The Khabouris is a faithful copy of the true text of the Peshitta New Testament books, though, as we know, some parts have been lost to damage, and a few pages have been replaced by a later scribe, where the original pages seem to have been lost or too damaged to keep in the codex. There are also about 3 scribal errors I have seen in the text so far.

Rather than just use the UBS text, I would look to see what is found in other Peshitta manuscripts which match the Khabouris text in their readings, and translate what is found there which preserves the original Aramaic NT text, for instance, the Houghton (Asahel Grant) Manuscript, the Goodspeed manuscript, as well as the Mingana Manuscript.

I spoke to our Brother Stephen a few times before he passed on to his reward, and he once said to me that he would like to change those portions out in his transcription to have the Mingana codex readings (which he was very fond) for the reconstructed parts, though he said when looking at them, he found that those parts weren't of any great difference in the few places where the Khabouris lacked the text.

I'm looking forward to reading your translations when you make them public, Doug, and think it may help to show what is going on.

Also, after looking closely at 1 Cor 3:15, I like the way it reads more simple and to the point in the Aramaic text, and will change my signature line to read as I see it given there in the Khabouris manuscript.